Mike, Jim and Jon were discussing a topic yesterday that I want to dig into a bit, because I think it has a broader context, one about intention.
Mike questioned two of Jim’s cites. One was about the Sea Change funding and one was about the Rocky Mountain Institute and its funding from the Chinese. My view is that generally, people don’t accept money to do things they disagree with (unless you’re an employee). So is money really an important thing to track?
Let’s take three energy examples. Often a person can read that say Senator Manchin is “in the pockets of fossil fuel companies.” But I ask, is it chicken or egg? If a person supports a policy, then organizations that support the policy will like to fund that person.
Just looking around randomly, EDF Action Fund (Environmental Defense) spent $171K for Senator Murkowski’s 2022 win. Do we think that that contribution changed her mind about anything?
Then there’s wind and solar.. the Open Secrets website says.. “Of partisan contributions, 76 percent went to Democrats, who want to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources.”
Again, this sounds like industries (and ideological folks) support people who want to foster their industries or ideologies. I suppose if a Congressperson or Senator is lukewarm, a large contribution might make them feel more warm and fuzzy toward a given industry or point of view. Maybe it happens.
Let’s go back to Sea Change and Rocky Mountain Institute, they both have donations from sources we may say are questionable. But we will never know if they have changed their point of view based on this part of their funding. Then there’s this (obviously the far-left designation means the source report is biased, but are the observations they made true?)
Do the Simons invest in renewables because they believe in them, or do they invest in ENGO’s who want to get rid of competitors like oil and gas because of their underlying beliefs or to support the industries they’ve invested in? More chickens and eggs. And to complicate things, currently nat gas electric generation is quite compatible and without large-scale battery capability, necessary as a backup to wind and solar because it’s relatively easy to power up and down. You can see the natgas/wind/solar compatibility in these graphs from across the country the last four days. That’s one of the reasons Sierra Club supported nat gas. .. until they didn’t. Supposedly because some chapters didn’t like it; but other chapters don’t like wind..
My original point wasn’t that people who want to get rid of domestic production of fossil fuels are funded by what we might gently term “non-supportive nation-states.” My point was rather “if we can’t distinguish these proposed “keep it in the ground” policies from those of non-supportive nation-states, shouldn’t we ask why that is and have that open dialogue with those holding those views somewhere? Maybe it’s just my personal laziness-perusing 990s makes my eyes glaze over. And if we go into the funding question, we have to go within the complex minds of politicians as to whether they are “bought off” or just “supported by folks who agree with them.”
It seems to me that we are unlikely to delve into their psychology in any meaningful way. So I think we should stick to actions and writing, not intentions.
***************
Similarly, (not to pick on Mike, as I’ve used this term in the past, as have others), I’d like to do away with the terms misinformation, disinformation and malinformation for the purposes of The Smokey Wire.
I’m always leery of new words entering the lexicon.. if, as our old friend, the author of Kohelet (Ecclesiastes), says, “there is nothing new under the sun” chances are we won’t really need new words. I think simply saying “I don’t think that’s true, based on..” will take care of it. The whole misinformation movement seems a bit cloudy. For example, I looked up the definition of it on Google. It said “false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.” So, whoa! We’ve gotten back into reading other peoples’ intentions again.
When people make up new words or abstractions, I am suspicious that there is an underlying purpose that doesn’t involve my input. Here’s what the American Psychological Association (second on my Google search) has to say and yes, I noticed it doesn’t match the Google definition:
Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong. Disinformation is false information which is deliberately intended to mislead—intentionally misstating the facts.
The spread of misinformation and disinformation has affected our ability to improve public health, address climate change, maintain a stable democracy, and more. By providing valuable insight into how and why we are likely to believe misinformation and disinformation, psychological science can inform how we protect ourselves against its ill effects.
And yet, people have been giving out misinformation and disinformation (however defined) since we learned to sign, and somehow Homo sapiens has managed to muddle through.
As to falsehood.. let’s face it – most of us, most of the time are not going to do the investigation to figure out where we come out based on our own review of 990s. Most of the topics we cover are complex, conditional in time and space, and oftentimes it’s difficult to discern what is true. In the words of Politifact, with regard to the Rocky Mountain Institute:
The institute is working with the Chinese government to reduce carbon emissions, but experts say that characterizing this as “ties” to the Communist Party lacks important context.
So there are facts, but they can be stated in such a way that they lack “important context.” Maybe we’ll never arrive at the ultimate truth? Or maybe there isn’t one truth. I’m sure Anonymous would have the relevant philosophical citations. On a more pragmatic level..
Say Amira says to Javier “that’s misinformation”. Amira is implying that either Javier is a doofus who’s been misinformed or that he has ill intentions to misnform others. Or maybe both. We should be able to challenge each others facts and perceptions without implying anything negative about each other.
So here are my suggested substitutions.
That’s disinformation.. = These sources, or my experience, say something different.
That’s been debunked. = These sources, or my experience, say something different.
See how easy that is?
Sharon wrote: “Again, this sounds like industries (and ideological folks) support people who want to foster their industries or ideologies. I suppose if a Congressperson or Senator is lukewarm, a large contribution might make them feel more warm and fuzzy toward a given industry or point of view.”
My best guess is that support can always found for nutty cause that just needs money to promote it to mainstream. Communism. Nazism. fascism. Racial hatred. Religious hate.
Once a group gets more money, they can recruit like minded people, generate publicity and generally expand. If thy change their minds, they KNOW the money will disappear.
I think this explains most of the climate scam. Al Gore started promoting it and directing federal money to supporters. and getting opposing scientists fired (Happer and Lindzen come to mind.)
Then Gore became a partner in a venture capital firm that finances startups that depend on government handouts for their survival. (He’s made millions off of the scam) One assumes that some of that money ends up financing politicians that happen to believe the we have a climate crisis. But I should note that politicians are well known to follow the money in setting their political positions. (They have been described as the ultimate whores.)
The key thing about the money is that the recipients know it is because of their positions and will disappear if they change.
thanks
JK
Sharon, I think I understand where you are coming from, but I would like to respond to a few things.
First, let’s look at the word misinformation. You stated, “I’m always leery of new words entering the lexicon.” The word misinformation has been around for a long time. From etymonline.com:
Misinformation 1580s, “action of misinforming;” 1660s, “wrong or false information,” from mis- (1) “bad, wrong” + information
I would say the use of the word misinformation has become more popular lately primarily due to all the discussions about it in the media, online and in various academic and government papers.
The way I like to describe disinformation is that it is purposeful misinformation. All disinformation is misinformation, but not all misinformation is disinformation. In some writing, disinformation is lumped into misinformation for ease of writing and reading, but disinformation is definitely a distinct form of misinformation.
You correctly stated, “And yet, people have been giving out misinformation and disinformation (however defined) since we learned to sign, and somehow Homo sapiens has managed to muddle through.”
This is true, of course, but it has only been since Al Gore invented the internet (that would be called sarcasm) that misinformation and disinformation has been able to spread globally within hours (or less). I would argue – and there are several papers and books on this – that misinformation and disinformation are currently being used very effectively to destabilize governments throughout the world at a pace that has never happened. It has also caused, in some instances, great human suffering and cost people their lives. And in the case of oil and gas companies, their decades-long disinformation (and lobbying) campaign concerning climate change more than likely slowed any serious initiation of working towards becoming carbon neutral. In my opinion, it is just one of many reasons not to trust “big oil and gas.”
I try not to use the terms misinformation and disinformation lightly, but I did err with my second use of the word misinformation (so I guess I did use the term lightly) in my comment, “but your accusations, at least the two I checked, seem to be misinformation.” There was more nuance in both the statements I challenged to outright call them misinformation, although I did provide a little wiggle room with the use of “seems to be.” Still, my bad. Perhaps the word mischaracterization would have been better.
I stand by my first use of the word misinformation: “your sources are well known for putting out misinformation.” I could write pages on this with examples, but I’m not going to take the time. Sorry if you think that is a copout.
Personally, I feel the use of the terms misinformation and disinformation are much more tame and can be a lot more accurate than a lot of the name calling, derogatory statements, and mudslinging that goes on by some commenters, but I will minimize my use of the words when replying to other’s comments in the future.
Lastly, in a comment on a previous post on this topic, I think you are comparing apples to oranges using the Times recent spectacular headline mistake to question the veracity of the Washington Post’s article I linked to. First of all, they are two different papers. Secondly, the Times error was tied to an evolving world event and in their haste they made the classic mistake of taking the word of a group known to put out less than accurate information. The Washington Post article was not time sensitive and was more analytical/opinion oriented.
Every media outlet makes mistakes, some more than others. One thing I always look for is do they correct it and do they own up to it. As the Times pointed out in their mea culpa, they changed their headline and added new information as they received it. Also, one should always read beyond the clickbait headline and the Times article identified their source allowing readers to judge if it was reliable.
So.. having observed things I know about portrayed in the NYT and the WaPo, I am inclined to think that they are not as careful as they could be in discerning the truth, and in fact have biases. In some cases, they don’t really own up to it “sure we reported things that aren’t true but how could we have known? Reporting is really hard! It’s what we thought at the time.” And many times the truth became clear only via folks on the much maligned Twit X (like Alina Chan and Covid origins). So.. no.. I don’t trust them.
I think that through time it will become more clear that there are journalists that can be trusted and perhaps institutions at some point.
Sharon wrote: “So.. having observed things I know about portrayed in the NYT and the WaPo, I am inclined to think that they are not as careful as they could be in discerning the truth”
I would be far harsher than that. here is my list of, ignored or distorted major stories:
Russian Collusion; Muller report; Ukrainian phone call; Russian bounty on US troops; Alpha Bank; Charletsville; Racism; Phony Climate crisis; Hunter’s laptop and its evidence of Biden taking bribes. (https://www.foxnews.com/media/times-post-hunter-biden-laptop-reckoning)
And covering up claims of OVER 17 MILLION in bribes from Ukraine, Romania. Russia, China, Greece, Romania, Kazakhstan. Perhaps much more.
Ukranian tape recordings of Hunter & Joe talking with Burisma about apparent bribes..
Biden’s daughter’s (Ashly) diary telling of his sex abuse of her.
And NYT:
Covered up Stalin’s murder of millions of Ukrainians
Down played the holocaust.
Downplayed the exposure of the climate scam by climategate
Ignored or distorted in comparison to Fox’s alternative versions? I just read (Peter Pomerantsev is a senior fellow at SNF Agora Institute, Johns Hopkins University) that this kind of endorsement of factually unsupported claims is done to show tribal membership (especially under authoritarian governments). I’m sure you’re in good standing.
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/peter-pomerantsev
PS – You forgot space aliens.
Jon, it’s not just Fox.. there are a wide variety of news sources around. Perhaps they are all inaccurate and biased? It’s possible. That’s why I think a diversity of approaches/biases can help us understand what’s really going on. And perhaps we can’t approach that for world events but we can for topics in our own humble little area of the world.
JK specifically cited Fox, and their lack of honesty and credibility is well-documented. Care needs to be taken to not select media sources where the “diversity of approaches/biases” amounts to false equivalency as a form of disinformation.
Hi Jon: Can you cite a source or two for the “well documented” dishonesty of Fox? Are we talking about the Russia hoax, the Biden laptop, or Israel’s recent bombing of a hospital? Or are you lumping Fox in with the rest of our media, but singling them out as an example for some reason?
Your blatant bias is a little unnerving.
I don’t think we’re going to get very far with comparing the NYT and WaPo and Fox news.. we can agree to disagree about the trustworthiness of different news sources. The great thing is, for our world, we don’t have to believe any outlet. We can usually generate many sides of topic, with citations, right here.
Sharon wrote: “I don’t think we’re going to get very far with comparing the NYT and WaPo and Fox news.. we can agree to disagree about the trustworthiness of different news sources”
But we can do this:
1. What stories got ignored?
2. Where “both sides” cover a story, compare them to see what details are left out.
3. Is the article written by a third party financed reporter like the AP is now doing.
See: https://freebeacon.com/media/associated-press-coverage-of-courts-climate-bankrolled-by-dozens-of-left-wing-foundations/
From the AP itself:
https://www.ap.org/press-releases/2022/ap-announces-sweeping-climate-journalism-initiative
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/05/media-giant-ap-news-sells-out-journalism-for-just-8m-from-billionaires/
This article contains a list of participating papers: https://www.reportforamerica.org/news-rooms/
This article contains an example of outside “support”
https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-act-supreme-court-black-voters-6f840911e360c44fd2e4947cc743baa2
Disclaimer found on the above page: “The Associated Press coverage of race and voting receives support from the Jonathan Logan Family Foundation. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.”
Here is another funder:
We help our news media colleagues cover the defining story of our time with the rigor and urgency it deserves. https://coveringclimatenow.org/about/
I wasn’t going to respond and I certainly don’t want to prolong this as there are many other topics to move onto, but I thought this was a good opportunity to explain a little more about misinformation and disinformation in the media.
One best practice put forward by some media outlets is when quoting someone who is making a known false statement to follow that up immediately with a statement that acknowledges it is false, or in some cases, there is a lack of agreement on its veracity. This is an effort to reduce the spread of misinformation, that is, people repeating the content of the quote without the knowledge it is false. With this best practice in mind, it can then be said that media outlets that repeat a false quote they know is false without following it with acknowledgement of it being false are engaging in disinformation, that is, they are purposely spreading unfactual information. Influencers, including politicians, rely on some media to quote them without a disclaimer in order to forward their agendas.
This may sound pretty straight forward, but of course it isn’t; media outlets don’t have the personnel and time to check out every statement.
I would guess, the case of the NYT highlighting Hamas info on the hospital explosion in Gaza was misinformation – in their haste to report on breaking news someone/some people did not think too hard about the source. I don’t believe it was purposeful, but I could be wrong. This happens somewhat frequently with many media outlets.
As for an example of Fox engaging in disinformation, the best, most publicized one, would be their settlement concerning the Dominion defamation case. There are many more examples, but I will let people who really want to know to follow up on that themselves.
One more example concerning the nuance of when to report something, in this case, the Hunter Biden computer news that the NY Post broke right before the 2020 election. The NYT, WP and Wall Street Journal (which leans right) were all approached with that news. None of them reported on it because they couldn’t verify its authenticity. They were all on the lookout for disinformation designed to help swing the election in one direction or the other. The NYP did not verify the report, but because of that they got to break the news and it turned out to be correct, or at least partially correct. The NYT in their haste to break news on the hospital explosion didn’t verify and got it wrong. Depending on how one leans may affect how one interprets both these cases.
No media outlet gets it right all the time. What one has to watch out for are those that have a history of purposely putting out or quoting false information (without a disclaimer).
Mike wrote: “As for an example of Fox engaging in disinformation, the best, most publicized one, would be their settlement concerning the Dominion defamation case.”
JK: YUP! But Fox did not edit the Charlottesville story to make Trump look like a racist. And unlike the major media, fox didn’t lie about Al Gore’s climate scam, Trump removing MLK statue,
Russian Collusion, Muller report, Ukrainian phone call, Alpha Bank
Mike wrote: “…the Hunter Biden computer news that the NY Post broke right before the 2020 election. ..The NYP did not verify the report, but because of that they got to break the news and it turned out to be correct, or at least partially correct.”
JK: If you got some news from conservative sources you probably would have seen one of MANY interviews with the writer of the NYP article who talked about how she verified it. You also forgot to mention that the FBI verified its authenticity well before the story broke, but kept quiet, unlike other stories where they leaked to their press buddies.
Mike wrote: “The NYT in their haste to break news on the hospital explosion didn’t verify and got it wrong.
JK: That is why they should consider the source before publishing propaganda from well known liars.
Mike got this right: “No media outlet gets it right all the time. What one has to watch out for are those that have a history of purposely putting out or quoting false information (without a disclaimer).”
JK: That is why we question everything from the major press.
Also many of them are now using reporters paid by left wing outsiders: https://joannenova.com.au/2023/05/media-giant-ap-news-sells-out-journalism-for-just-8m-from-billionaires/
thanks
JK
Mike, I think this David Zweig post looks into what might have gone wrong with part of the hospital story.
https://www.silentlunch.net/p/did-the-entire-media-industry-misquote
I think it’s not so much getting things wrong, but not trying to improve sloppy procedures or even admitting to them. Like David says “Which dovetails with point three, which is that, in my view, important quotes or citations should always be linked or sourced. Since reporting always involves some degree of filtering and bias, readers should have the option of easily finding the original material that a journalist reports on so readers can review the source themselves if they so choose.” That seems like a simple fix.
Good find Sharon. I agree, major mess up by a lot of media outlets. As I have said a couple times now, this kind of thing typically happens with breaking news, but the hospital blast seems to be an extreme case that will hopefully wake up all the major media outlets. Interestingly, I noticed the Times was exceptionally cautious with reporting deaths with the recent mass shooting in Maine. Maybe they learned something? At least temporarily? I have cautioned many people over the years when there is breaking news to have a little patience to find out what really happened. And, yes, I agree that media should link to their source when possible.
https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-trump-2020-0ac71f75acfacc52ea80b3e747fb0afe
Just to name the most obvious. And it should really only take one fraudulent claim (as opposed to mistakes) to kill someone’s credibility.
But how do we discern fraudulent claims from mistakes, without affording lawyers and discovery to look into their emails?
Jon–“should really only take one fraudulent claim (as opposed to mistakes) to kill someone’s credibility.”
By that standard, you find ALL major media to have no credibility.
FOX is the only one that DID NOT spend 3 years lying to us about:
Trump removing MLK statue
Whipping immigrants from horseback
Russian Collusion
Muller report
Ukrainian phone call
Russian bounty on US troops
Alpha Bank
Charletsville
Racism
Phony Climate crisis
Lab leak
And FOX DID NOT cover up Hunter’s laptop and its evidence of Biden taking bribes.
(https://www.foxnews.com/media/times-post-hunter-biden-laptop-reckoning) And aren’t covering up claims of OVER 17 MILLION in bribes from Ukraine, Romania. Russia, China, Greece, Romania, Kazakhstan. Perhaps much more.
And aren’t covering up Ukranian tape recordings of Hunter & Joe talking with Burisma about apparent bribes..
And FOX DID NOT cover up Biden’s daughter’s (Ashly) diary telling of his sex abuse of her.
And UNLIKE the NYT,
…FOX wouldn’t have covered up Stalin’s murder of millions of Ukrainians
…FOX wouldn’t have down played the holocaust.
…FOX Wouldn’t have downplayed the climate scam exposed by climategate
Jon Haber wrote: “JK specifically cited Fox, and their lack of honesty and credibility is well-documented.”
I am so tired of your constant garbage.
ALL news sources make mistakes. BUT the mainstream media stands out with its politicization, promotion of Al Gore’s climate scam, and covering up Democrat misdeeds and outright crimes (Biden taking bribes) while attacking trump at every chance. That includes editing to change the meaning of what he said, Charlottesville being a classic example. Right up there with hiding an ignition source to show how flammable “side saddle” diesel tanks were. (Seems after several tries, the staged collision did not catch fire, so the lit it and lied.
You saw my list of things the mainstream media mir-represents or ignores. how can you possibly defend that?
BTW, when are you going to show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming? AND DO NOT REPEAT YOUR FALSE CLAIM that you have posted it before.
As I have said before: GET LOST DAVID.
Oh my goodness, can we agree that Jim, Toby, Deanne, Bob, 2ndLaw, etc really have no place on SmokeyWire? Nothing is ever contributed besides highly biased opinions and cherry picked data. It’s exhausting. Has no one ever heard of peer-reviewed research in reputable journals or something besides “how you feel”?
So you think everyone who “belongs” on SmokeyWire should be complaining from the shadows? A bunch of non-entities who share a trust and unfailing belief in “peer reviewed” literature? Seriously? Isn’t this just an expression of “how YOU feel”, but without enough spine to reveal WHO is actually having these feelings? Yes, that would make a great discussion group and I would be happy to avoid it completely.
Well Bobby, apparently we should trust the figures in your silly monthly/quarterly write ups, that come complete with no data sources/cherry picked data? I mean, if you want to take the gloves off, that is what it is that you produce. By the way, distribution readership.
It’s funny that someone with a PhD from a. well respected institution feels so, so strongly about peer reviewed literature and so many other items, like abbreviations.
Further, seems to me that “in the shadows” or not, named or not, plenty of “named” recent commenters are apparently not on your hook for disparaging or aggressive or blatantly biased agendas, instead of good science (can we please stop with the copy paste of newsletters and random “citations”/”news articles”?). Just like in 1980, this is 2023, please try to keep up.
Maybe the problem you should acknowledge is that while the adults are in the room, you are here, not making or influencing the decisions.
“Adults” don’t hide behind pseudonyms, “Anon,” while they belittle others. Just cowards and trolls pull that kind of nonsense. Grow some juevos or learn some manners is my advice. Coherent sentences would also help.
If you want to have a meaningful discussion — despite all evidence to the contrary — man up and identify yourself. Meantime, you are hardly “in the room” at all, wannabe, unless that’s what you call your Mom’s basement. Bye.
Anon: As best I can recall, you have never posted any meaningful or substantive content. These two posts are particularly offensive; you make personal attacks and add nothing but snark. I’m as good as any blogger at posting snark, but you deserve a medal for it. What else do you think you’re adding?
Sharon: Why do you continue to allow an anonymous poster to insult people without adding anything substantive to the conversation? Do you ever exercise your discretion as site owner and moderator? I wish you would.
Thanks Toby: We agree! Doesn’t happen too often, but when phony cowards attack real people under the shadow of anonymity, it only lessens the credibility and quality of these discussions. Corrosive nitwits such as “Anon” and his ilk really should be dumped. They are nothing but rude distractions with nothing worthwhile to add.